Path: ultra.sonic.net!jupiter.dnai.com!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!news1.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3689CA82.3E4B@sympatico.ca> From: richard sprigg Reply-To: kteis@sympatico.ca X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SYMPA (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.magick,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.pagan.magick,alt.occult Subject: Re: English Qaballa and Racist Agendae (was Re: Gematria and ...) References: <199812292047.MAA02456@bolt.sonic.net> <3689628A.159A@luckymojo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 205 Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:38:58 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.172.206.26 X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 915000757 206.172.206.26 (Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:52:37 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:52:37 EDT Organization: Bell Solutions Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.magick:130380 alt.magick.tyagi:15053 alt.pagan.magick:13140 catherine yronwode wrote: > > I've been suggesting a new term for it, too. Like rock'n'roll...it > ain't really the country blues. I leave it to the Thelemites to devise > that name. We Jews will retain the use of the "old style" monicker. Liber AL instructed Crowley to devise Englsh *Gematria*, not Kabbalah. The original MSS being in English, this is only common sense. That gematria would refer to Thelemic works in English. > > > # 666 is the value of the Square of the Sun, and of various Greek > > # and Hebrew Names connected with the solar force. This far predates > > # Crowley etc. Crowley associated the ideas Sun-Male-Phallus with > > # each other, and 'Solar-Phallic' is a term he used fairly often. > > # However Thelema is a 'broad church' and not all interpretations > > # are 'Solar-Phallic'. > > > > isn't it true that Crowley's esoteric preferences tended to be the > > solar-phallic, however? and doesn't this coincide rather pointedly > > with the German (cf. Ordo Templi Orientis, whose secret documents > > contain solar-phallic emphases and whose origin is German) mystical > > ideas of race purity, aryan white supremacy, and a general attempt > > to wipe out or appropriate everything Jewish? (snip of excellent discussion of Jung) > > The point Noll makes here is two-fold: first, Jung was certainly a > plagiarist, a falsifier, and a liar -- but his promotion of "Aryan" > Mithraic "solar phallicism" marks him as a racist, which is a greater > evil. Noll effectively connects Jung's interest in the "solar phallic > cult" of Aryanism with a Volkish determination to remove "semitic" > (Jewish) religious practices and attitudes from the culture of the > "Germanic" (Aryan) people, of whom he considered himself a member. Jung > was not alone in this -- the entire Volkish Movement was filled with > such hate agendas, as can be seen by the Nazis, who drew much from Jung and other Volkish theorists. That Jung was anti-semitic is not surprising: Those sentiments were widespread across europe from East to West, particularly in the nationalist movements. It should be noted that the US was also not immune: The original reason for making movies in Hollywood was the blatantly anti-semitic establishment in the east. > > > was Crowley one of these people? > > Noll does indeed draw links between Crowley's O. T. O. and the Volkish > Movement. Read the book. > > > does he have a bigoted and, > > according to Eisler's terminology, a 'Dominator' agenda? > > I cannot comment on this. I have been told by some of his admirers that > Crowley was above such petty "agenda" making... but i think the REAL > answer could only be found by learning how Crowley treated Jews, and > spoke of Jews in real life, and how respectfully he dealt with Jewish > mysticism. He had a number of Jewish assistants, and always wrote of Jewish mysticism with great respect. His strongest words of censure are largely reserved for the protestant christians of England. > > > if any of this is true, shouldn't we be careful about what to > > accept from this author, > > I think many of us are already "careful" in that regard. Excellent advice: Uncle Al himself notes that uncritical acceptance of any idea is foolish. (Not that he did not on occasion fall into the trap) > > > shouldn't his work be considered strongly > > suspect and heavily biased in favor of gross evils? > > "Suspect"? Perhaps. Gullibly influenced by the racist agenda of the > Volkish Movement? Perhaps. No one has asserted a link between Crowley > and organized anti-semitism. I have provided a taste of where such > documentation can be found in Noll's book, but that book was about JUNG, > not Crowley; it is up to Thelemites or their antagonists (of which i am > neither) to perform the thorough research needed to see whether Crowley > was a dabbler in syncretism who gobbled Jung's "Solar Phallus Man" whole > or whether he was also, like Jung, an avowed anti-semite. I have seen no evidence of direct or implied anti-semetism in his writings: given his tendency to call a spade a fucking shovel this would suggest to me that he was not anti-semetic, even during a time when such an attitude would have been acceptable. From a thelemic POV, I cannot see how anti-semetism can be congruent with Liber AL. As to swallowing some things whole, Crowley did at times do this, notably with the writings of Burton. > > > possible that everything Crowley touched is subtlely neonazi > > in character > > I think you mean "proto-Nazi." Neo-Nazi refers to the period after the > fall of the Third Reich, at which time Crowley was near-dead or > completely dead. Much is made of Fuller's influence on Hitler, and his blitzkrieg strategies, but he had broken with Crowley some years before. > > > and his secret societies are nefarious mind- > > numbing desecrators of human compassion and clear reason? > > The use of over-the-top descriptors like "everything Crowley touched" > and "neferious mind-numbing descrators" indicates to me that you are > trying for levity. I personally don't see much humour in this subject. > Sorry. > > I also don't think you want anyone to seriously comment on these loaded > questions, even if they manage to strip them of their pseudo-humourous > wording. > > However, these questions, in less cutesy language, might run something > like this (and i shall append my relies): > > "Was Crowley an anti-semite? Did he have a bigoted agenda?" > > The answers are, to me, unknown at present. The hints in Noll's books > are merely leads. Someone needs to follow them up. Crowley saw himself as a prophet: all prophets have a bigoted agenda, though not, I do not believe in the sense that you mean. > > "If he was an anti-semite, shouldn't we be careful about what to accept > from this author?" > > The "if" is unproven. But the question is valid: the reader should beware of accepting anything from *any* author, From Abra Melin to Zachariah. > > "If he was an anti-semite, shouldn't the accuracy of his scholarly work > be considered strongly suspect and potentially heavily biased in favor > of anti-semitism or pro-'Aryanism'?" > > The "if" is unproven, but the lack of accuracy in his scholarly work is > already apparent. Whether this is due to anti-semitism per se or simply > another egregious instance of his era's widespead inndulgence in > "orientalism" and hegemonic appropriation of the cultures of conquered > peoples, i have not the slightest clue. Most of his work related to dead cultures (Egypt, Greece). It is worth remembering that in the 1920's the Hebrew language was guttering: most of european jewry spoke Yiddish or the vernacular. It is only in the past 50-odd years that the language has become strong and vibrant again. He went to the sources that he could obtain most readily. As a goyim, he would have been denied many sources. > > "If he was an anti-semite, is it possible that some of what he wrote is > subtlely racist in character and his secret societies are tools designed > to decrease tolerance among the races and religions of humanity and to > decrease human compassion?" > > The "if" is unproven, and the proof would have to be in the pudding. > Thus i would rephrase the question further: "Are Thelemites notably > anti-Jewish?" So far, i think the ones i have met in usenet have had a > less-than-expected understanding of what constitutes Jewish religious > mysticism Why would you expect different? The *average* thelemite is not dissimilar to the average anything else. You clearly have little understanding of Thelema, yet I do not consider you an anglophobe. The Intolerant thelemite is less a thelemite than one who follows their will along another path, be it judaism or any other. and some of them have also indicated that think they can > appropriate Jewish mysticism for themselves because we "old style" Jews > aren't using it anymore. This is not "evil" per se, merely naive > arrogance to the point of annoyance. I assume you refer to the Kabbalah itself, not gematria. The TOL is a useful symbol, rather like the circle or the cross. I find young magicians get too attatched to all symbols: They will learn, or not. Thus, if Crowley had set about to > encode some sort of "agenda" in his secret societies, it would be, as > best i can determine from the membership of those societies whom i have > met in usenet, an agenda of promoting ignorance and incuriousity, There are many Crowleyites: Ignoring AC's advice to avoid being too partial to any one author, they take his every word as gospel. The Thelemite has only one focus, to find his or her true will and follow it. Knowledge of the self is a reflection of knowledge of the external universe. To find and follow the true will entails a broad understanding of many things. > whereby followers would be left in the dark about the sources Crowley > plagiarized and parodied You clearly feel threatened by AC using all that he was given or found, and in most cases acknowledged, and seem to contrast this with the "purity" of Judaism. I suggest that not all of the holy books of Judaism are so pure, and that many were assembled by plagiarization, assimilation and theft. This in no way invalidates the purity of the message. Judaism has survived as a living faith by a process of slow and constant change. The threat to Judaism is more likely to come from the older and larger jewish heresies, Christianity and Islam.